Image size reduced, original size: 780 x 438. Click here to view the image in its original dimension.

QUOTE

An American-born man who'd pledged allegiance to ISIS gunned down 50 people early Sunday at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the deadliest mass shooting in the United States and the nation's worst terror attack since 9/11, authorities said.

* The gunman, Omar Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, Florida, was interviewed by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 but was not found to be a threat, the FBI said.* Mateen called 911 during the attack to pledge allegiance to ISIS and mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers, according to a U.S. official.

* Orlando police shot and killed Mateen.* Mateen's ex-wife said she thinks he was mentally ill.Mateen carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Sunday and started shooting, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53, police said.After a standoff of about three hours, while people trapped inside the club desperately called and messaged friends and relatives, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and stun grenades and killed Mateen."It appears he was organized and well-prepared," Orlando Police Chief John Mina said early Sunday. Authorities said they haven't found any accomplices.

Apparently it's the biggest shooting (Casualty wise) in American history? I had a buddy in florida, hope he wasn't near the Orlando area, and I hope the people in FL near that area are safe and are doing well.

And if i lived there, i'd happily donate some blood for those victims, i'm glad there are lines of people donating. Such a sad and annoying news on this sunday, it'll only add fuel to the fire in the run for President, specially for Clinton and Trump is what i'm guessing is gonna just ignore the gun law and go straight for 'ban the muslims' routine but go even more degrading and rude.

May the poor victims rest in peace, and I hope the families are able to finally get their loved ones to finally rest.

Clinton and Bernie have jumped on the 'ban guns/ban automatic weapons/blame the NRA' immediately, which makes me sad--Bernie should know better that an automatic weapon wasn't involved in this incident (and newly-made automatic weapons have been banned since 1986). In addition, neither is saying anything about handguns, despite the fact that one was used in this incident and handguns have been used in over 65% of mass shooting incidents. Rifles, meanwhile, account for some 20%, and if you restrict it to specifically the rifle that the liberals are trying to ban (the AR-15) it's even less than that. But hey, let's not do anything real, right? Let's just take advantage of people who know nothing about guns and don't care either.

Trump has immediately jumped on the 'no more Muslim immigration' train. Not even touching that one.

And yes, this is indeed the most deadly mass shooting in US history, topping Virginia Tech by 17 deaths and 30 injuries.

Someone reported a guy in a car for suspicious activity the night of the shooting here in so cal (I believe it was Malibu) the person calmly said he was going to the pride day here in west Hollywood (he acted normal but searched the car anyways) and they found (ingredients) for a bomb and I think weapons as well. Thank the people for reporting it in, another mass shooting averted.

Clinton and Bernie have jumped on the 'ban guns/ban automatic weapons/blame the NRA' immediately, which makes me sad--Bernie should know better that an automatic weapon wasn't involved in this incident (and newly-made automatic weapons have been banned since 1986).

There was an interview a while back of a lawyer that was raised in Camden, NJ. His parents forced him to go to college. When he came back, he realized that his priorities were different than they were before: that's there's life outside of drinking and cable TV. None of the people he grew up with understood that and clung to their lives of food stamps and unemployment because that's what they knew and were comfortable with.

There was also a relatively recent article in Esquire where the author interviewed homeless people. To his and my surprise, the vast majority of the people he interviewed were voluntarily homeless, preferring not to work or have debts. Some of them actually make significantly more begging in cities than I make working my day job.

The problem isn't poverty or even the distribution of wealth and more about cultivating hope in a productive way. People choose the life of crime when they feel that there's no other way to get what they want, and once they start, it's increasingly difficult to get themselves out because we are actively discouraging them from trying (ie diminished employment opportunities, safety net, etc.). If we can provide the means for people to live productive lives, we should be better off.

I know that this is controversial, but a good start might be to improve the quality and extent of education in our prison systems, and assisting former prisoners with job placement. If successful, maybe they can inspire their peers to lead a different life.

When you have someone affiliating themselves with a group that kills prisoners by dumping them in nitric acid, or burning them alive to name a few, the level of callous violence displayed by this guy doesn't surprise. Yet I have to turn off the news as I'm seeing too many idiots trying to rationalize the mindset of this guy.

Ofcourse politicians immediately jumped on the Anti-gun/Anti-immigration (depending which party) message. Yes, I don't want guns in the hands of individuals with criminal backgrounds but what I hear from the left is more of the same. Gun and ammo bans are "feel good" policies that won't stop violent acts like this as we saw in Paris (a country with incredibly strict gun laws) or San Bernardino. I cringed hearing somebody on NBC refer to an AR-15 as a "machine gun".

The enforcement of gun laws are broken, to say the least. I too would prefer those with pre-existing violent criminal charges to have firearm restrictions.

A complete gun ban won't prevent people from killing people, but it may reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Guns are definitely not the root of the problem, but they are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately.

The enforcement of gun laws are broken, to say the least. I too would prefer those with pre-existing violent criminal charges to have firearm restrictions.

A complete gun ban won't prevent people from killing people, but it may reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Guns are definitely not the root of the problem, but they are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately.

Guns don't enable anything. They're inanimate objects and have no power on their own.

Anyway, 'enabling' is an annoying popsych term thay doesn't mean anything. Your use of the word tool was enough. ☺

My mind is in a bit of a tangle thinking about this. It sucks knowing that there is nothing we can do to fix this. 😳

Evil will continue to exist no matter what.

I have a darling cousin and I just found out she's way gay. She's adventurous and goes to big cities a lot. That could have been her. I'm wracking my brain to think how best to protect her from something like that.

Of course, I don't mean just her, but others as well. You get me, yeah?

A complete gun ban won't prevent people from killing people, but it may reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Guns are definitely not the root of the problem, but they are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately.

How dare you. So my gun, sitting behind me in its locked case with the magazine separate and the ammunition in another container, is a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately? Are you saying someone is going to come take my gun and use it for nefarious purposes, or are you suggesting that I--as well as all other gun owners--are going to become indiscriminate killers based solely on the fact that we own a gun? Tell me, which amendment came directly after the freedom of speech, again? You know, that one that seemed more important to the foundation of our country than the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure?

I'm sorry, but as a left-leaning gun owner I'm so sick of the ignorance about firearms. Stop trying to take away my sport just because you don't understand it. But hey, while we're on the topic, how about this lovely little piece of news? Apparently there's a petition being sent to the White House to ban the AR-15 platform because it's the single biggest reason for gun violence (in their opinion) based on anecdotal evidence from its presence in several high-profile incidents. That in and of itself would be stupid enough...but the Orlando shooting didn't even involve an AR-15! HERP!

The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.

Over 65% of public mass shootings involved the use of handguns. Less than 20% involved rifles, and even less than that involved an AR-15 specifically. The vast majority of gang violence in the US involves handguns, not rifles and definitely not AR-15s. However, doing 'something' about handguns is hard. We don't want hard, we want a scapegoat that we can point our finger at and do something about to make our constituents feel like we've done something productive when, in fact, we haven't done jack shit except piss off the people who actually know anything at all about firearms and firearm-related crime.

Now, having said all this, I am absolutely 120% for improving the laws and enforcement related to the acquisition of firearms. I think it it absolute insanity that it's easier to acquire a gun in a state as restrictive as California than it is to acquire a driver's license. What the fuck is that? That needs to change across the nation, stat. We also really need to have a hell of a lot better communication between the three-letter agencies so that people already being investigated can't just get approved for firearms on the spot like this guy did.

Of course, that won't happen, because that would mean disclosing all those secret lists those agencies have--which is why the bill to try to prevent those on the no-fly list from acquiring guns failed to pass. If it had passed, it would have actually done good...but it would also have disclosed information about that super-sekrit list and lead to litigation as to why people are on it. They didn't want that, so the resolution failed. Until such time as the agencies responsible for security can give up their own privacy, I highly doubt any similar law will come to fruition.

On another note, I love the ambassador from Saudi Arabia saying that he's so appalled by what happened in Orlando and that his country denounces the actions of the gunman and all that shit. Absolutely hilarious coming from a country that has capital punishment for homosexuality and crossdressing. Fuck off, Saudi Arabia.

Guns don't enable anything. They're inanimate objects and have no power on their own.

I'm not disagreeing, though in the extreme/stretch case, we can talk about WMD's. They don't do much when left alone, but I feel a lot more comfortable when people (ie countries, neighbors, gangs, etc.) don't have them at their disposal.

FYI: I do have a gun permit and did go to a shooting range less than two weeks ago. While I don't see myself ever owning a gun for anything other than target practice, I'm not opposed to responsible people (who remain responsible) owning them. I just don't know how we can keep them out of the hands of people who seek to do harm in a consistent manner.

QUOTE

Are you saying someone is going to come take my gun and use it for nefarious purposes, or are you suggesting that I--as well as all other gun owners--are going to become indiscriminate killers based solely on the fact that we own a gun?

I'm assuming if they're breaking into your home to steal your gun, their intentions aren't great. I'd rather not find out.

Also, "for those who desire to kill indiscriminately", not "will influence owners to kill indiscriminately". They mean two different things. The former suggests a pre-existing disposition to do harm. The latter is just stupid.

QUOTE

I am absolutely 120% for improving the laws and enforcement related to the acquisition of firearms. I think it it absolute insanity that it's easier to acquire a gun in a state as restrictive as California than it is to acquire a driver's license.

How dare you. So my gun, sitting behind me in its locked case with the magazine separate and the ammunition in another container, is a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately? Are you saying someone is going to come take my gun and use it for nefarious purposes, or are you suggesting that I--as well as all other gun owners--are going to become indiscriminate killers based solely on the fact that we own a gun? Tell me, which amendment came directly after the freedom of speech, again? You know, that one that seemed more important to the foundation of our country than the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure?

I'm assuming if they're breaking into your home to steal your gun, their intentions aren't great. I'd rather not find out.

Also, "for those who desire to kill indiscriminately", not "will influence owners to kill indiscriminately". They mean two different things. The former suggests a pre-existing disposition to do harm. The latter is just stupid.

No, the point here was that you insinuated that merely by virtue of owning a firearm, either someone is going to come get it and use it to commit murder or that I, as a gun owner, was predisposed to doing the same. Neither of these is the case and suggesting such a thing is nonsense, yet the vast majority of people representing my political party of choice believe these things. It's depressing.

Laws banning guns outright will affect those who already follow the law. They will affect the people who own guns legally and know more about both firearms and firearms law than those who are actually creating the laws. Considering you live in a state that, as I recall, is even more restrictive about firearms than California, I'm sure you're aware of just how difficult it is to keep up with legislation and make sure that you're on the right side of the law at all times. You and I work very hard to make sure we follow the law and are responsible gun owners.

Yet it's people like you and me who these ignorant liberal fuckwits are targeting and demonizing. That's what I can't stand. It's not the tools, it's the people. So do something about the link between the people and the tools. Look how many shitty drivers we have. Now why is it easier to get a gun than a driver's license? Let's fix both problems at the same time!

There's definitely a misunderstanding somewhere because that was not what I was intending to insinuate. Since it was taken that way, it was probably my fault and I apologize. As far as it matters, I agree with your points, I just don't know how to express it properly. Not really an excuse, but I'm still getting accustomed to waking up at 3am to workout, so I'm not all there atm.

... I'm seeing too many idiots trying to rationalize the mindset of this guy.

But he's just defending his culture from western colonialism! It's only natural! We, as overprivileged white scum have it coming to us!

QUOTE (Kiroshino @ 6 hours, 4 minutes ago)

A complete gun ban won't prevent people from killing people, but it may reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Guns are definitely not the root of the problem, but they are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately.

True, it would probably reduce the rate of some small-time gun violence, but on the other hand, think about how damaging it would be to remove people's right to concealed carry and protect themselves against others who attack with illegally-acquired arms. I'm sure the ratio of lives saved to lives lost won't be quite the same.

QUOTE (Cecilia @ 4 hours, 25 minutes ago)

Guns don't enable anything. They're inanimate objects and have no power on their own.

>le inanimate object memePlease. Besides, crimes of passion are aided by weapons of convenience. Banning guns and making them illegal won't stop any psycho who's particularly motivated to get one, but it might for someone who gets one simply because it's easy to acquire. Obviously banning guns is a bad idea and not the way to go about things, but suggesting that it literally wouldn't save a single life is beyond absurd.

QUOTE (Cecilia @ 4 hours, 25 minutes ago)

Anyway, 'enabling' is an annoying popsych term thay doesn't mean anything. Your use of the word tool was enough. ☺

Argue semantics if you want, but you're not saying anything by attacking someone's choice of words with an unsubstantiated opinion. I think psychology in general is largely bullshit, so calling anything "pop-psych" doesn't mean anything. So if you wanna throw opinions in the mix, there's mine.

QUOTE (Cecilia @ 4 hours, 25 minutes ago)

I have a darling cousin and I just found out she's way gay. She's adventurous and goes to big cities a lot. That could have been her. I'm wracking my brain to think how best to protect her from something like that.

Here's hoping she never has to. This whole thing came totally out of left field - that's the scariest part.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

How dare you.

Heeere we go.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

So my gun, sitting behind me in its locked case with the magazine separate and the ammunition in another container, is a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately?

He said this literally nowhere.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

Are you saying someone is going to come take my gun and use it for nefarious purposes, or are you suggesting that I--as well as all other gun owners--are going to become indiscriminate killers based solely on the fact that we own a gun?

Also filed under "shit nobody ever said".

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

I'm sorry, but as a left-leaning gun owner I'm so sick of the ignorance about firearms. Stop trying to take away my sport just because you don't understand it.

Jesus Christ, chill out. I don't know what got into you but you either didn't read his post, did read it but only gleaned buzzwords off it, or got paranoid and started reading into it way more than he wrote.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

But hey, while we're on the topic, how about this lovely little piece of news? Apparently there's a petition being sent to the White House to ban the AR-15 platform because it's the single biggest reason for gun violence (in their opinion) based on anecdotal evidence from its presence in several high-profile incidents. That in and of itself would be stupid enough...but the Orlando shooting didn't even involve an AR-15! HERP!

Now that's fucking stupid, but nothing surprises me when it comes to petition-starting liberals. People just don't have a clue what they're arguing about.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

Now, having said all this, I am absolutely 120% for improving the laws and enforcement related to the acquisition of firearms. I think it it absolute insanity that it's easier to acquire a gun in a state as restrictive as California than it is to acquire a driver's license. What the fuck is that? That needs to change across the nation, stat. We also really need to have a hell of a lot better communication between the three-letter agencies so that people already being investigated can't just get approved for firearms on the spot like this guy did.

This, this, a million times, this. There are so many ways gun control laws can be improved, from mandatory firearms training to required psychological evaluations. Improving the process is totally doable, and people should be focusing on this instead of "wah gunz r bad, other cuntrys dont have gunz" horseshit.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

On another note, I love the ambassador from Saudi Arabia saying that he's so appalled by what happened in Orlando and that his country denounces the actions of the gunman and all that shit. Absolutely hilarious coming from a country that has capital punishment for homosexuality and crossdressing. Fuck off, Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, liberals blame "toxic masculinity" and male violence for the attack, and the U.S. is more at fault than any middle eastern country.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 2 hours, 12 minutes ago)

... you insinuated that merely by virtue of owning a firearm, either someone is going to come get it and use it to commit murder or that I, as a gun owner, was predisposed to doing the same. Neither of these is the case and suggesting such a thing is nonsense, yet the vast majority of people representing my political party of choice believe these things. It's depressing.

Again, I did not get any of that from a single thing he posted at all. You're having a trigger attack, calm down.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 2 hours, 12 minutes ago)

Laws banning guns outright will affect those who already follow the law.

As well as those who do follow the law, right up until they don't, and suddenly have a destructive weapon at their convenient disposal.

QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ 2 hours, 12 minutes ago)

They will affect the people who own guns legally and know more about both firearms and firearms law than those who are actually creating the laws.

You yourself literally said "it's easier to acquire a gun in a state as restrictive as California than it is to acquire a driver's license". Now you're saying the people who own these guns know more about firearms and firearms law than lawmakers. So then tell me - if it's easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license, knowing what you know about how famously adept and ever-competent the drivers are where you live, what does that say about (many) gun owners if it's even easier for them to acquire guns?

Anyway, it looks like we're all on the same page when it comes to understanding that a gun ban is not, and never will be the solution, and that rather it should just be that we introduce a better system of gun control that makes it easy and painless for responsible, stable individuals to acquire firearms for their safety/pleasure, and impossible for irresponsible, unstable (or potentially unstable) individuals to acquire firearms period. Contrary to what leftist regressives would have you believe, it is doable.

Kinda reminds me of how schools have "no weapons allowed" signs but that isn't stopping anybody. Even if I didn't have a firearm, I could just as easily kill somebody with a pen or paper cutter. You could drown somebody in a toilet. BAN TOILETS.

Kinda reminds me of how schools have "no weapons allowed" signs but that isn't stopping anybody. Even if I didn't have a firearm, I could just as easily kill somebody with a pen or paper cutter. You could drown somebody in a toilet. BAN TOILETS.

As people always say, "gun-free zones" may as well carry fluorescent signs saying "WE'RE DEFENSELESS, KILL US ALL!"

He said this literally nowhere. Also filed under "shit nobody ever said". Jesus Christ, chill out. I don't know what got into you but you either didn't read his post, did read it but only gleaned buzzwords off it, or got paranoid and started reading into it way more than he wrote. Again, I did not get any of that from a single thing he posted at all. You're having a trigger attack, calm down.

Here was Kiro's post, or rather, the relevant sentence:

QUOTE (Kiroshino @ Today, 5:13 AM)

A complete gun ban won't prevent people from killing people, but it may reduce the number of gun-related deaths. Guns are definitely not the root of the problem, but they are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately.

So, as said, guns are a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately. Full stop. Feel free to glance up, read it over again, then glance back down here and read it again. My gun is not a tool/enabler for those who desire to kill indiscriminately. Pointing that out is the entire object of my replies.

QUOTE (kyonpalm @ 4 hours, 6 minutes ago)

As well as those who do follow the law, right up until they don't, and suddenly have a destructive weapon at their convenient disposal. You yourself literally said "it's easier to acquire a gun in a state as restrictive as California than it is to acquire a driver's license". Now you're saying the people who own these guns know more about firearms and firearms law than lawmakers. So then tell me - if it's easier to get a gun than to get a driver's license, knowing what you know about how famously adept and ever-competent the drivers are where you live, what does that say about (many) gun owners if it's even easier for them to acquire guns?

There we go, finally, a solid rebuttal. You've correctly pointed out my bias in which I generalize that gun owners in my state must be like myself and those I associate with when, in fact, I'm sure many are far less knowledgeable about the laws and far less concerned with them in the first place. I want to believe that gun owners are like me and those I associate with, and I share deeply the frustration of those who are and are being demonized by incidents such as this one. However, you are correct here--statistically that cannot be true. So, the solution?

It's as you and I pointed out. We desperately need legislation at the federal level that requires, with no exception, mandatory training courses with both full written and practical exams. Hopefully even different classes of license depending on the type of firearm. A background check system that actually fucking does something, powered by databases populated freely by all our three-letter agencies. Every gun owner should know as much as I do. Every gun owner should be as safe as I am when handling firearms. Anyone who isn't, frankly, frightens me...and shouldn't own a gun in the first place. Let's start there.

I mean, given the relative ease of purchasing a firearm legally I'd assume the buyer in question would definitely know more about the laws than the lawmakers, after all, they have to go through the process of going through everything to actually get their license and weapon.

Since all the people making the laws do is cherry pick words in regards to banning something. Words that have been spread by the mainstream media as the big evil rather than taking the minimal amount of time necessary to learn the difference.